Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Redwolf24: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Questions being asked by User:Titoxd to all candidates |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] ==
I myself would like to lend a helping hand to the endevours of the arbcom. Some of my positions? I hate trolls, yet at the same time I believe in criminal rights. I strongly believe in such organizations as [[WP:AMA]]. As can be seen from my work at [[WP:MC|the medcom]], I often take out time of my own to reorganize stuff and make sure everyone's doing what they should be. I'd check the RfAr page often, voting on every case I could manage. I see a lot of cases only get the attention of maybe four members. Do we want four people deciding things that can potentially affect the whole project? The more the merrier, much like we should never close [[AfD]]'s where only two people voted, and RfA's with 4 supports and no other votes. I had told a good friend of mine here I wasn't going to run for arbcom, but after my friends pushed me, I gained interest. I'd like to lend a helping hand. [[User:Redwolf24|<
:Perhaps its worth noting that my proudest contribution is the reactivation of the medcom. Its also worth noting that I pulled out of the race after the events [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin User:Redwolf24|here]] thinking I didn't have a shot. But friends and otherwise very kind people have nagged me into reentering the race. Direct questions below, or at my [[User talk:Redwolf24|talk page]]. [[User:Redwolf24|<
== Comments and Questions ==
Line 29:
''Q: Why do some people seriously think you are "Willie on Wheels"? If you are not then why did you take their accusations so seriously? If push came to shove, how could you prove to us that you are not Willie on Wheels?''[[User:Shelburne Kismaayo|Shelburne Kismaayo]] 23:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)''
A: no one really thought I was WoW, they just found my jokes suspicious. Some of them thought it immature and disrupting, which I disagree with, at least for the disrupting part. As for proving I'm not WoW, I can't think of a way to do that, but I think everyone knows I'm ''not'' Willy on Wheels, who has been here since 04 I believe, and I have been here since April. Why does this matter? Because I've been docked points for being too new. I could have registered an account a long time ago if I knew wiki existed. Willy is my senior, and I wish I even knew about the wiki back when Willy was around, it would have been fun to block the first one ;-) [[User:Redwolf24|<
===Question from Snowspinner===
At fifteen, and with six months experience, you seem, at least superficially, less qualified than many for a seat on the committee. What
:Let's put it this way... its not time spent in days, its time spent in HOURS. If you've been here since 2003, and you spend an hour a week, then people who don't bother to research at all will say you're a better candidate. However there's me, and I spend hours every day on this site. I've read all the policies and most of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Anything I have to do as an arbitrator I have been doing as the medcom chair. Analyze evidence? Yup, have to, to make sure the RfM is legit. Know what cases to accept and which to reject? Again, yes. As a mediator (rather than the chair) I have to be able to communicate, remain cool, and put myself in people's shoes. And as for age, that shouldn't matter... Wikipedia is a utopia of all races sexes religions and ages living as equals, and in fact I never had to say my age, but I don't think the community will specifically care about age. [[User:Redwolf24|<
::I believe the term you're looking for is "[[man hour]]". <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] <sup>([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])</sup> <small>[[2006-01-09]] 22:41[[ISO 8601|Z]]</small></i></span>
The problem as I see it is that, if elected, you could be artitrating detailed, technical edit disputes amongst experts in their field. You would do this without any knowledge of how the article-editing process works, or of how disputes editing articles usually get resolved. Without that it's easy to perceive very small issues as big, or to miss the whole point of the dispute entirely. Your age means a lack of life experience, which just helps. The older you get the more arguments you see, your impression changes as you see some things dealt with better than others. Your perspective changes from the immediate to the longer term - which is important, as most editors going to ArbCom now are good editors making far more constructive edits to Wikipedia than your edit history shows you have ever done. The other problem your lack of article edits gives is that we cannot see how you would deal with a dispute yourself so have no real idea of how you'd react in given cases, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 06:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:The other side of the coin regarding the qualifications of some of our young candidates is that the kind of 15-year-olds that spend their free time involving themselves in a worthy community project like Wikipedia demonstrate themselves to be the promising leaders of their generation. I find it highly commendable that they already are seeking to serve in leadership roles. Good for them, and hopefully the Arbcom will include a cross-section that is representative of ALL our editors, including our younger diligent contributors. The young perspective is important too. --[[User:MPerel|<
==Request from Dragons flight==
Line 53 ⟶ 54:
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:Well, I once terminated BigDaddy777's account, he was the master of bullshit, so I believe I have a bullshit detector. I also got rid of Rainbowwarrior1977's account, who later admitted in email he was trolling... so I'm alright. [[User:Redwolf24|<
Line 59 ⟶ 60:
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then [[WP:IAR]] makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:I don't look at the rule, I look at '''Why do we have this rule?'''. If you look at the basis of each rule, you should be able to decide which should take precedence, or if any do for that matter. [[User:Redwolf24|<
==Questions from [[User:-Ril-]]==
Line 81 ⟶ 82:
:The third question has such an obvious answer it only looks as if it is your personal opinion that arbitrators do this, which I strongly doubt as they're good people. If they do (unlikely, more likely a POV) then we should change that.
:All parties can be investigated, and should be. Arbs should be able to investigate too. [[User:Redwolf24|<
==Question from Marsden==
Line 95 ⟶ 96:
At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 09:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, you read my mind -Ril-. [[User:Redwolf24|<
And for a perhaps more satisfying answer to Marsden - I've said this sooo many times, but I can say it again. I'm a mediator, and the chair of the medcom at that. As the medcom chair, I have leaps and bounds more experience in the dispute resolution process than your average Joe. Arbcom is about dispute resolution, not punitive matters anyway. [[User:Redwolf24|<
==Question from [[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]]==
You are one of the busiest Wikipedians on the project, with the Medcom, article editing, community interaction- [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AN]], nominations at [[WP:RFA]] (including myself :) ) etc... Your Request for Bureacratship was denied largely for this reason. Do you believe that you have the time and patience to continue these extensive activities if you become an Arbitrator?--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
:Medcom is the only one there that is an actual job, really. AFD is something I do when I have nothing else to do, I only weigh in at AN when I feel it's important, and nominating RfA's is just my way of trying to get all the admins we can. My RfB was denied pretty much solely because of my lack of time on Wiki. [[User:Redwolf24|<
Line 128 ⟶ 129:
[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
==Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-==
''(Being asked of all candidates)''
''Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?''
''As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?''
''[[WP:NPOV|wikipedia has a policy of NPOV]]. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a '''substantial''' opinion or fact that '''contradicts''' your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion==
I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal]]?
2. Are there any parts of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
4. Have you voted over at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules]]? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
== Questions by Rob Church ==
:"The Association of Member's Advocates formalises the process too much, and makes the whole issue of dispute resolution akin to a legal system."
What is your response to this, may I ask? [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]''</sup> 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Questions by Matt Yeager==
# Do you feel that it is appropriate for editors (especially administrators) to post the "f-word" (during a discussion on an unrelated subject) on another user's talk page?
# Do you subscribe to [[WP:IAR]]?
Thanks for your time. [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
== Form questions from [[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ==
#What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
#How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?
—[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 02:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||